Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld.
If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works.
To use all features of this page, you should consider registering.
Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process.
If you are already registered, please login here.

Belgian Mechanised Brigade
Introduced in 1936 to serve with the Belgian-Dutch Mobile Corps, the Mechanised Brigade is doctrinally viewed as a highly mobile reserve with secondary duties as a cavalry force.
The mechanized cavalry brigades were replaced by another Mechanised Brigade.
The 1e Brigade Mécanisée is equipped with T-20 tanks (British Cromwell), the 2e Brigade Mécanisée with T-19 tanks (Chilean M41). 12 Pznaer II Bel form a recon armoured company for each brigade. This new layout was suggested by Kirk's plans, he had brought enough tanks for two full regiments, but the OOB showed only one, so I've doubled the number and used the older T-19s to equip the second brigade, although until Cromwell deliveries are completed, older tanks will fill that unit. It will not be full strength until the end of 1945. The carriers are Universal Carriers built under licence as agreed between me and Kirk not long before he left.

I think that "Mechanized Brigade" really should just break down and call itself a full armoured division, albeit something of a light one.

I presume many if not most of those infantry divisions depend heavily on the reserves. It's a very large force otherwise, or the divisions are very manpower-poor. I'd half expect the Belgians imitate the French "Infantry Division Northwest" pattern.

A question regarding the extensive coast defenses and landward fortresses recently completed. Who mans them, and how much manpower do they consume? I would think a considerable amount. Or are some of the infantry divisions in fact fortress divisions?

I'm not sure what Kirk's long term plans are. In his PM he stated his intentions as buying two regiments worth of M41s and then replacing them with Cromwells. At that stage, Belgium only appeared to have one armoured regiment and where the second was, is not clear. So I've done a semi-logical thing and assumed the original Brigade was expanded. I've made a second to replace the cavalry as it seemed more expensive and odd to have 2-3 more motorised brigades. Also it uses the M41s, which are still good enough for use and not yet fit for the scrap yard/ conversion.

Kirk seemed to favour companies of tank destroyers for each Infantry Regiment which works out at 216 tank destroyers. Now Belgium has 352 tanks, that need can be reduced and probably such companies will only exist for each division.

There are 12 frontline divisions and 6 reserve divisions (as indicated by the (R) in the OOB above) plus the two Ardennes light divisions. This works out roughly as the OTL 1940 OOB, though the manpower is probably greater. With the Peace Dividend the numbers of divisions could drop (at least one Corps could probably be disbanded).

Good point regarding the fortifications. The divisions at Eben-Enamel and Liège are manning the fortifications there. I don't know who mans the coastal defences yet. Perhaps fortress troops, perhaps divisions. It's something I'll need to factor in before I decide the final OOB.

Does anyone know how much of the historical land fortifications were built in WW?
I've found a post by Kirk that states Eben-Emael was completed in 1935. Beyond that I know little of what was built, although I've assumed the Namur sector is fortified etc. It sounds logical to me that only forts facing Germany were completed, since under the UKN Dutch aid would be freely available and their border covered elsewhere.

As to manpower, it seems the historical forts in the Liège area were manned by five regiments of fortress troops in 1940. So probably I will have a separate fortress arm and a couple of infantry divisions might go in compensation.

The coastal defences now look like this (note: two of Kirk's new fortress-style emplacements are in Holland and so would be manned by Dutch troops)
Would another 6-7 fortress regiments cover these needs? These forts are pretty big, land-battleships probably equates more accurately and I'm guessing these would need a fair few pillboxes and MG bunkers too for anti-infantry use. I probably would not have completed these if Kirk had not started building, so I have to run with this I think.

I have some serious concerns on the potential of these new fortresses to become sponges for manpower. Your characterization of them as “land battleships” is not an unreasonable one, but the more important question is the physical area encompassed by their landward defenses.

Let’s take Ostend as an example – it (like all the other new fortresses) twelve single 120mm turrets, eight 125mm DP turrets, eight 90mm AA turrets, and sixteen 37mm LAA in in concrete emplacements forming its landward defenses. Exactly where are these landward defenses located?

Modern-day Ostend covers an area of 37 square kilometers, and has a population of 70,000 people. Are the “landward” defenses concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the big coast defense batteries – i.e. between the coast defense guns and the city proper, or are they cited within the city proper? At one point I believe Kirk was postulating that the landward defenses would form the backbone of a hedgehog that would encompass the city as a whole – or at least that is what I understood him to be saying. You rightly note that besides the guns of the fortress there would be the need for anti-tank defenses and infantry fighting positions to cover the approaches to the guns; but if they are spread out over nearly forty square kilometers, the number of troops needed to do that becomes astronomical.

Even if the seaward and landward defenses were concentrated in close physical proximity they would require considerable garrisons. The far larger Maginot line consumed several corps worth of fortress troops plus some additional fortress divisions. I would expect that each of the fortresses in question would need at least a garrison of 3,000 men – if not far more – to be viable. That 3,000 would comprise the minimum of gun crews, supply and support troops, and infantry to man close-in defenses. If the intent is to defend the entire cities in which these fortresses are cited, then I would allocate at least a division of fortress troops to each one.

Even if you cut peacetime garrisons to the bone and manned the defenses with reservists in time of war this would represent a heavy burden on Belgium’s limited military manpower, and severely restrict the number of mobile troops you could maintain. Of course, you could leave the fortresses empty or in caretaker status, but frankly, having built them, you need to make use of them.

Not sure about Hood's ideas, but I expect them to be at a distance from the city similar to the forts that formed the defensive lines around Amsterdam and Antwerp. If you put the gun emplacements within the city, then enemy artillery can easily bomb the city at the same time that they are bombing your gun emplacements which is probably something you want to avoid. Airraids are troublesome enough. No need to give the Germans a potential invader an easy opportunity to turn the city into rubble using artillery fire.

From a quick glance at the Antwerp one, there was a mention of the range of the artillery resulted in forts being build further away from the city. Since it is more rencent, I would expect that any defenses around Ostend would be build with that in mind so any forts or gun emplacements will be at some distance of the city.

I know what your saying Bruce, and Walter has amply illustrated the problems. By land battleship I was referring to the battery size and 1,000+ 'crew', they would probably be far more resource and labour intensive than battlships!

The answer I don't know for sure what Kirk's plans were, but I would back that he meant landward fortifications would encircle the towns/ ports they were near. To be honest, if German Panzers an paratropers have reached the outskirts of Ostend then the games up and 90% of the nation is probably overrun. So it makes sense only to have local AA cover and local defence against paratroopers. Saying that, these have been paid for now and I don't want to go on an erasure spree of Kirk's plans. It seems the static stuff is going to cause the most headaches. I guess flogging half the surface fleet to the Dutch has freed some manpower, so perhaps the Navy needs to dig into their pockets too for this monster folly.

Forts!

Hopefully this should make everything clearer.

I have retained almost all the historical border defences, there is no internal line surrounding Brussels and no Dyle Line and the Leige defences, rather than being grossly over-endowed with four lines of fortifications are only 1.5 lines here. I have worked the Antwerp fortress into the other land-based defences there. The NE border bunkers are halved and the spacing doubled from OTL figures. Going by OTL practice, the Corps HQ'd in these defended zones (4 in all) are basically manning these works and being part of them. I have not yet worked out the coastal forts in detail (excluding Antwerp), but I might have those all under naval command to draw on that source of manpower. Special fortress regiments will be attached to each Corps for the Big Forts, the small bunkers and such being normal troops. The armoured brigade at Leige will form a kind of mobile defence/ counter-attack unit which also allows me to thin the fixed AT defences too.

This is still pretty big stuff, but less big than OTL so I feel happier.

North-East Border
The border is covered by a thin screen of 118 bunkers stretched in a single line along the canals connecting Antwerp, Turnhout, Dessel, Bocholt and Lanaken. This canal line is on average 14 m wide and 2.5 m deep. The bunkers are built at the edge of the water line. To the East, where the border between Belgium and the Netherlands follows the course of the Meuse, this screen is preceded by an advanced position of twelve large anti-tank bunkers, each armed with one 60mm L/50 FRC anti-tank gun, one 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine gun and one searchlight. These bunkers interdict the main roads from The Netherlands into Belgium in an area were justified by just 10-15 km away from Germany behind a narrow stretch of Dutch territory.

Albert Canal
The canal (about 160 km long from Antwerp to the Meuse) has been purposefully designed as an anti-tank barrier on average 60 m wide and 5 m deep. The earth has been piled up on the western bank to give the defenders a commanding position and creating a serious physical barrier, especially in its eastern section where the banks were steep and high. In the Eben-Emael area, the canal cuts through a large hill forming an impressive gorge that would seem to preclude any assault from that side. The western bank is defenced by 85 medium machine-gun bunkers equipped with two firing ports (two 13.2mm FN-Browning). These bunkers are often built into the canal bank, spaced 1200-1400 m apart. The bunkers are aligned laterally and have overlapping fields of fire due to the long straight stretches in the canal.
To the west, the canal defences are anchored on the PFA and the east the PFL and the fort of Eben-Emael. This fort covers the potential approaches of a German assault (forces could be there within an hour) which go over bridges crossing the Meuse in Dutch territory. The fort also prevents the PFL positions from being outflanked from the north. Technically, Eben-Emael is part of the PFL but for practical reasons is integrated in the defence of the Albert canal. Eben-Emael was finished during 1935. It is manned by a garrison of 900 troops. The armament includes; one turret mounting two 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 guns, two retractable turrets each with two 75mm FG TR guns, twelve more 75mm FG TR in four concrete protected positions of three guns each, twelve single 60mm L/50 FRC anti-tank guns and twenty-two 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns in casemates. I Corps is assigned to defend this line.

Position Fortifiée de Liège (PFL)
This consists of a battle line about 35 km long covering Liège in a half-circle around the city about 8-9 km out. It consist of six Great War era forts (renovated 1929-31) and 62 pillboxes (built 1934/5), forming a single line in most places. 45 bunkers are of the medium dual firing ports type with two 13.2mm FN-Brownings (some have one FN-Browning and one 20mm FN-Madsen cannon for anti-tank defence). 13 artillery observation bunkers are fitted with an observation cupola. There are two large anti-tank bunkers each armed with one 60mm L/50 FRC anti-tank gun, one 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine gun and one searchlight, and two small anti-tank bunkers each with one 47mm L/30 gun.
The renovated forts are designed only to withstand bombardment by 220 mm artillery shells. Barchon has a garrison of 290 and is armed with; two turrets each with one 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 guns, two turrets each with two 105mm FG Schneider M1913, two retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun, four 50mm DBT mortars and twenty-nine 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
Evegnée has a garrison of 250 and is armed with; one 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 gun in a turret, two turrets each with one 105mm FG Schneider M1913, three retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun and twenty-five 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
Fléron has a garrison of 284 and is armed with: two turrets each with one 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 gun, two turrets each with two 105mm FG Schneider M1913, four retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun and twenty-six 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
Chaudfontaine has a garrison of 250 and is armed with: one 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 gun in a turret, two turrets each with one 105mm FG Schneider M1913, four retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun and twenty-two 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
Embourg has a garrison of 250 and is armed with; four retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun and twenty 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
Boncelles has a garrison of 250 and is armed with; four retractable turrets each with one 75mm FG TR gun and twenty 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.
A continuous anti-tank barrier, mostly Cointet gates, ahead of the main fortifications also protects the line along with two small bridgeheads on the eastern bank of the Meuse, protecting the crossings against a German breakthrough through the main line. These bunkers are positioned to hold the roads and possible avenues for motorised attacks under their fire to delay any surprise attack on the Meuse crossings and buy time for the engineers to destroy the bridges. The anti-tank bunkers would hold the roads under their fire, the roads being obstructed by an anti-tank barrage or a crater created by engineers. The Visé bridgehead has 15 light type bunkers (one 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine gun) and 4 large anti-tank bunkers (one 60mm L/50 FRC). The Argentau bridgehead has 8 light type bunkers (one 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine gun) and 2 large anti-tank bunkers (one 60mm L/50 FRC). III Corps is assigned to defend this line.

Position Fortifiée d’Anders (PFA)
On the eve of the Great War, two concentric rings of defences protected the strategically important port of Antwerp. The Inner ring, at the edge of the city, consisted of an earth wall and a moat flanked by nineteenth century brick and mortar forts. The Outer ring formed a 94 km long arc around Antwerp about 15 km out. It was made of a string of forts and redoubts armed with artillery in steel turrets. Most works were built between 1906 and 1914 and were made of unarmed concrete. Three forts in the bends of the river downstream from Antwerp protected the city from a naval attack. Post-war the defences were left in disrepair until 1934, when Belgium decided to fortify Antwerp once again. The position has a threefold mission: protect Antwerp from a German armoured thrust through the Netherlands; secure the left flanks of the north-eastern border screen and the Albert Canal position; form a bridgehead on the Scheldt in case the army was forced to withdraw to that line.
The Outer ring was rebuilt and strengthened by anti-tank defences and layered bunker positions. The forts were renovated and repaired, but not rearmed with artillery. Each fort was converted into an infantry stronghold to be defended by a machine gun company (eight 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns and twelve 7.65mm Hotchkiss light machine guns). The heavy machine guns are deployed in modern bunkers built on top of the old turret pits where they provide flanking fire on the intervals between two works. The remaining machine guns are installed in open topped concrete positions on the fort’s glacis and inside the traditore battery and the caponnieres to defend the fort itself. Each fort is also fitted with airtight gas shelters. The smaller redoubts were converted into platoon-sized positions for one reinforced machine gun platoon (two 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns and six 7.65mm Hotchkiss light machine guns), the heavy machine guns and two light machine guns positioned in two bunkers built on the front face of the redoubt and the remainder in the traditore battery. Machine gun bunkers defend the intervals between the forts and redoubts forming two successive lines. These are standard medium type with two 13.2mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns, though some have one FN-Browning and one 20mm FN-Madsen cannon for anti-tank defence. The anti-tank defences are made up of an anti-tank ditch and a combination of flooded areas and steel obstacles. The anti-tank ditch (built 1938-1940) is 30 km long and connected the forts and redoubts of the north-eastern section of the PFA, from the mouth of the Scheldt to the Albert Canal. The ditch is 14 m wide and contains 2 m of water (can be raised to 2.5 m). It runs in a broken line, with machine gun bunkers at the inner angles. Fifteen roads cross the ditch on earthen dams with an underpass for the water and they can be quickly barred with Cointet gates. In addition, there are 33 light removable bridges to allow infantry to cross over and man the outposts of the position.
Defence against maritime attack up the Scheldt has seen most of the old forts replaced. Along the Schelde are several batteries in concrete emplacements; 1 battery of four 150mm guns, 2 batteries of four 120mm Cockerill-FRC M1931 guns each and 2 batteries of four 75mm FG TR guns each.
A powerful new fortress was completed during early 1945 with seaward defences of; four single 9.2in FRC/Vickers-Australia M1935 turrets and six single 152mm turrets. The landward approaches form a northern arc for the main PFA line with; twelve single Cockerill-FRC M1931 turrets, eight single 125mm DP turrets, eight 90mm L/50 FRC AA turrets and 16x1 37mm Schneider M1944 LAA in in concrete emplacements. V Corps is assigned to defend this line.

The Ardennes
There are a total of 321 pillboxes in the Ardennes. Of this total, 309 are light type machine gun bunkers (one 132.mm FN-Browning heavy machine gun) and 12 are medium type bunkers (all concentrated in Libramont and Neufchâteau) (1x 47mm L/30 FRC and 1x 13.2mm FN-Browning). The Ardennes works are grouped in centres de résistance (CR) to defend a town, an important cross-roads or a valley. These fortifications to allow retreating Belgian troops to delay the enemy and prevent him from outflanking any units. There are two successive strings of CRs: Vielsalm-Gouvy – Houffalize – Bastogne – Arlon on the border with Luxembourg, and, Lienne valley– Baraque Fraiture – Western Ourthe. Other CRs worthy of note are the crossroads at Neufchâteau (27 bunkers), Recogne (20) and St-Hubert (7). VIII Corps is assigned to defend this line.

T-22
Also known as the CATI 90 (Canon antitank d'infanterie automoteur 90mm), a self-propelled gun based on the VUC-2, a licence-built Carrier Tracked No.2 Mk I Oxford. The CATI 90 uses a standard VUC-2 chassis but with a new upper body that mounts a Cockerill C 90 / L32 90mm anti-tank gun in the glacis. The sides of the open-topped body can be folded down to give the crew more room. The body is only lightly armoured. The CATI 90 is operated in teams of two vehicle, the gun carrier and an ammunition carrier based on the standard VUC-2. An order for 100 of each variant was placed in March 1947, undergoing trials in 1948 and deliveries should begin in May 1949.
Weight: 9.84 tons laden
Length: 14 ft 9 in (4.49 m)
Width: 7 ft 7 in (2.28 m)
Height: 5 ft 7 inch (1.70 m)
Engine: 110hp Bedford V-8 petrol, Hortsmann suspension
Speed: 31 mph (50 km/h)
Operational range: 125 miles (200 km)
Armament: 1x 90 Cockerill C 90 / L32 and provision for 1x pintle-mounted 1x 7.65mm FM-30 FN-Browning
Armour: 25-8mm
Crew: 4

Cockerill Marine Tank
Under development as a private-venture by Cockerill, the tank has a large flotation hull allowing amphibious use, being propelled by its tracks in the water. Two prototypes were built during 1948 and the company began a series of trials to find the optimum bow form and water propulsion. Two propellers were tried and abandoned, but two water rudders were found necessary.
Weight: 22 tonnes
Length: 6.5 m
Width: 3.05 m
Height: 2.6 m
Engine: 450hp Minerva V-12 diesel, Minerva MSM.6B gearbox (six forward and one reverse gear) driving rear sprockets, torsion bar suspension
Speed: 80 km/h (50 mph) (road)
Operational range: 270 km (170 miles) on roads
Armament: 1x 75mm L/54 FRC (60 rounds) and co-axial 7.65mm FN-Browning in turret (1,500 rounds) and 13.2mm FN-Browning on a pintle mount atop turret (800 rounds)
Armour: 25-7 mm
Crew: 5

Conventional artillery.
An RCL will be following soon, probably entering development in 1949.

I fear I should have been more precise with my question.

Looking at the indicated specifications for the Cockerill C 90 / L32 I am struck by its extreme low weight – 416 kg. The historical American T8 90mm antitank gun is quoted as having a weight of approximately 4,000 kg, and the historical Soviet 85mm AT Gun D-48 weighs in a 2,350 kg. This strongly suggests that the Cockerill C 90 / L32 uses the High-Low Pressure System like the Heer’s lePaK45; I ought to have made that point at the outset.

If this is so, I still have concerns. The Belgian weapon is cited as having a muzzle velocity 21% higher than the lePak45 but weighs only 65% of the German weapon. I would think that comparable weapons might be closer in mass. Moreover, looking at the historical Cockerill Mk8 vehicle gun – which utilizes the High-Low Pressure System – masses 725 kg, apparently exclusive of its turret mount.

The weight is of the OTL MECAR 90mm. I know that was a more modern weapon, but I couldn't find any reliable information on the original Mk1 and Mk2.
I'll add some weight to bring it to the same league as the PaK45.

If the specs are historical, then I shan't protest... but... I'm still really curious as to *why* the weight is so much lower than I'd expected. I'd totally see this as correct for a recoilless rifle, but it's apparently... not?